Are there any refutation of the original Lovelace Test?
I am a future neurologist with a very complete understanding of linguistic processing in the brain.  I am also an overprotective parent, so I monitor every phrase uttered to my child, and also completely determine all the books she reads in the course of her education.

When my child writes a poem, then, I know the dataset on which her brain was trained, as well as the processes by which her language inputs became language outputs--in broad outline I know these processes are non-linear and are based on how different inputs along with the current collection of trillions of distinct synaptic weights updates the synaptic weights.  I don't know what her poem will be, of course, because there are random factors and the whole history of her synaptic weights are unobservable, but I adhere to the Lovelace test and can therefore conclude that composing the poem was not a creative act.

The Lovelace Test, like the Chinese Room Argument, implicitly assumes that what computers/AI can do in processing symbols and information and what brains can do are distinct.  If you accept that assumption, then the argument ceases to be interesting-- you've merely redefined creativity as one of the distinct things that brains can do.  If you reject the assumption, the argument that computers are incapable of creativity ceases to be valid.  The thought experiment itself does nothing to assist us in evaluating the truth of the assumption.